Most Helpful Guy

Anonymous

I agree. If both genders could decide not to have children, it could cause a crash in the birth rate so huge that it will effect society as a whole. How that would affect us I can't say. Going to sperm banks may become the norm for women that want kids, but can't find a man that wants to have kids with her.

We may develop an artificial uterus to make it easier on men to be single fathers if they can't find a woman that wants to have a child with them. Some countries may even out law birth control for some people, do to how serious the population crash might become.

There will still be people that want kids, but the odds of them meeting each other and want to have each others children, would require a huge change in our way of thinking. For one thing men will be less likely to want a child at the same age a woman wants a child, and men may not be willing to go off the pill if custody laws don't become more fair to men. Regardless of what happens, it will have a huge impact on society.

There are already sperm banks and it is easy for a woman to get a hold of a guys sperm. If it gets harder to get sperm then sperm banks could become more normalized. I am not talking about some extreme version where women can ONLY go to sperm banks to get pregnant.

Surrogate mothers are a legal nightmare. It is illegal to even pay a woman to be a surrogate, as that is seen as taking advantage of poor women. So even finding one is difficult. If a guy can't find a woman to start a family with, he is even less likely to find a woman willing to have his child and then give up custody to the man for free. It just isn't a practical solution.

I imagine that depending on how technology develops we are likely to see a mixture of all of these changes.

Most Helpful Girl

Oh man, it would be awesome! Over 50% of pregnancies are unplanned so even if we could cut that in half it would be huge. There would also be fewer cases of people stealing sperm etc... I honestly don't see why guys aren't thrilled about the prospect.

It does exist, it's called a condom. If you don't think a condom counts the a vasectomy certainly is no different than some of the options women have. But you are referring to the pill aren't you, which leads me to ask why you think men would take it any more than women do?

yes, I did. the point is men would ALSO be taking them, adding to the prevention. though, honestly I think men would take them more seeing as men attempt to be promiscuous much more. a lot of men are paranoid about women trying to trap them with pregnancies, they wouldn't have to worry about it anymore.

My point was that there are already several options a man can use to prevent pregnancy, and adding a pill to that list would not be a massive change in the rate of pregnancies, currently countless women who are on the pill get pregnant because of extenuating circumstances or simply forgetting, and the same would be true of makes. I do think however that the rate of fathers abandoning their pregnant partner would drop slightly. But I doubt it would effect the overall population enough to cause it to stop growing.

I think it would cause a massive drop. a lot of men don't wear condoms, and many who do don't use them properly. most pregnancies are unplanned. how could extra precaution not have any effect at all? that makes no sense.

Currently most pregnancies are unplanned because they occur with people who are two young to want children yet, and a large portion of those pregnancies are handled with abortions. As the people who don't want kiss YET get older and into a more secure position financially they will want to have children (in many cases) and would just have the same number of children later in their life. So the largest effect would be a temporary drop in birth rates and a significant overal drop in abortion rates.

It's funny you should say that. Since the advent of birth control, their has been a huge power imbalance in favor of women because ultimately they chose (through choice of contraception, or maternal rights) whether a baby would be born and males have had very little say in the matter. With male birth control men could choose whether they would like to get a girl pregnant or not, which would change social dynamics immensely.

BraveHeart's right.Why would men be any more responsible than women in this issue?Are you just saying it'd be a lot more effective, or that the combination of both would result in many fewer unplanned pregnancies?

Then yes, the number of unplanned pregnancies should definitely go down.It may not be as exaggerated a drop as you believe, as it is still likely that only one (if any) member of a relationship will be on the pill.But unloading the gun and giving the target some armor should be more effective than what we have now.

Roe vs Way changed a lot of our population. Keep the politics out of it please. If Roe vs Wade never happened there would be twice the size of under privileged kids living on the streets and ghetto and a ton of crime would of resulted from it. Abortion has helped our population in the US. Our population only drops if people die. You would somehow get a number of women who kept babys and who didn't. That would get you a number of how much our population is affected by unplanned pregnacies. Our population will decrease and it will happen soon with the babyboomer generstion passing away. Nowadays people don't want that many kids. One is enough. Now if male or even female birth control was widely available to people around the earth. Our population over time would decrease.

abortion didn't cause that. women finally being able to learn birth control did. not just the pill, but prevention in general. that's why lower educated women/girls still have such a high rate of unplanned pregnancies.